Starting with Paul, in Galatians 1:6-9 and then the rest of the letter, I see no difference in Paul or in Scripture between doctrine and theology.  Once we move to say 19th century reformed or arminian theologies, there is a vast difference due to the way that these theologies systematize scripture.  Again, if we look at Roman Catholic theology clearly a difference between Bible doctrine and theology.  Barth, in Church Dogmatics, does systematic theology in a way more faithful to Scripture, or so I think, but clearly, there would be a difference between Bible doctrine and theology which for Barth is the church's response both to the living Word and to the Bible as the Word.

Blessings!

Jon

"Carmen C. DiCello" wrote:

To anyone interested:

I have two completely unrelated questions--

(1) How is Derrida--as in Jacques Derrida--pronounced? I have heard a couple of pronunciations, and now I am uncertain.
 

(2) What distinction do any of you make between doctrine and theology? Paul clearly emphasizes didache in a number of places (1 Timothy 4:1, 613, 16; 6:1, 3, etc.). This didache/teaching/doctrine is unquestionably important to the apostle, and it appears that there is at least some bare minimum content to it. But what is it? Is what Paul means by didache clearly mentioned within the contexts where he speaks of such things? Or, is he implying by his emphasis on "sound doctrine" that Christian teachers need to sort of work with the various texts of Scripture and formulate a somewhat systematic understanding of the faith? Personally, I feel that we are given biblical warrant to think in broadly systematic terms. After all, it is helpful to be able to concisely say this is what we believe about God, man, salvation, etc. On the other hand, I have long wondered if some systematic theologians, while having some warrant for building tentative theological systems, have gone way to far in their formulations, acting almost like the New Testament emphasis on doctrine is equivalent to, say, Calvinistic or Arminian theology. I hope this is coherent, for I am in somewhat of a hurry. Again, this is the basic question: What, if anything, is the difference between doctrine and theology? How are they connected?

As an aside: Some of you might respond to this question by defining "sound teaching" as that which highlights the virtues of Jesus Christ and the good news found in Him. I agree, totally! However, not long after you make such a statement, someone is going to question you about what you mean by such terms as Jesus, good news, etc. Thus, I am not at all certain that vague notions about what doctrine is (e.g., It's about Jesus.) are "solid" enough to survive in the world of real people. That is, as true as it is to say that Jesus (or whatever else you place in the category or sound doctrine) is the centerpiece of what Paul means by didache, is it also necessary (without getting into an overly detailed theological agenda) to state more precisely what we mean by doctrine? For instance when you read Leonard Sweet you get the impression, at times at least, that what he believes is formulated in such vague terms that it becomes difficult to determine what it is that he is seeking to communicate. I like Sweet, but he (and others like him) reads this way sometimes. Again, I hope this is clear.

Thanks,

Carmen

You can visit the faithmaps Yahoo groups web site to modify your
delivery settings and review former messages @

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faithmaps

Delivery Options:  individual emails, 1 digest email a day, or no email (all emails can be read and responded to at the site above)

Want to unsubscribe?  Just send a blank note to faithmaps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.